Indigenous voice to parliament doesn’t guarantee it will help Indigenous Australians

Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Perhaps the most important question in the lead-up to the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum is not whether modifications to the Constitution are legally sound, but will such modifications contribute to helping Indigenous Australians in any practical way?

Any proposed modifications should be legally sound, but such soundness does not guarantee the voice will help Indigenous people.

Many are convinced the voice will help Indigenous Australians in practical ways. Not so long ago Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney was reported as saying the voice, if we had it, would have prevented recent problems in Alice Springs from escalating to the crisis it became.

I am not convinced a constitutionally enshrined body can help those Indigenous people who need the most help, any more than the legions of Indigenous people currently working for government can. In fact, I think it can be harmful to them.

It sends the poisonous message to Indigenous Australians who suffer needlessly that their salvation lies in the voice and they are powerless to make any positive change in their lives, now or ever, through their own efforts or from receiving the help offered to them.

This is reminiscent of the claims in the past that Indigenous people would be so much better off if an Indigenous person were minister for Indigenous affairs because apparently only Indigenous people could fully understand Indigenous people. Two Indigenous ministers, whose commitment in Indigenous affairs is beyond question, have shown this to be false.

But it seems many are convinced the voice will be of practical help. Otherwise, the idea of this referendum would have been dismissed a long time ago. For those who believe the voice will contribute to improving the health and wellbeing of those Indigenous Australians who suffer the most, then perhaps the next most important question is: How? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation, but I am open to hearing one.

In the absence of a strong argument for how the voice will help Indigenous Australians, I think it is important to understand why so many Australians are intending to vote yes, and why so many corporate and sporting organisations, plus at least one Bar association, are proclaiming they are Yes voters. I offer three reasons.

First, for those who wish to feel like they have contributed to helping Indigenous Australians, then ticking Yes on referendum day is an easy way to do it. Due to the enormous goodwill Australians have towards their Indigenous brothers and sisters, many have the strong desire to do something, but are often unsure of what to do.

Voting Yes doesn’t require donating money, visiting remote communities, acknowledging unpleasant truths or doing hard work. The voice, they are told, will fix the problems facing Indigenous Australians. But with no clear plan of how it will work to help Indigenous Australians, shouldn’t concerned Aussies be sceptical? Surely knowing the Indigenous architects and many other Indigenous Australians are doing well without the voice should be proof positive the voice is not needed. Shouldn’t we instead be asking how successful Indigenous Australians have attained success?

Second, when something is repeated often enough, people often start to believe it, even if they once didn’t. Psychologists call this “illusory of truth”. It can be confronting to realise psychologists are needed to tell us what common sense already tells us. Australians have heard often enough that the voice is exactly what Indigenous Australians need. It has become ingrained in the minds of many.

Third, voice proponents are appealing strongly to emotion. I am not saying emotion should never play a part in decision-making, but it should be led by rational reasoning. We are seeing what American psychologist Jonathan Haidt has called “the emotional tail wags the rational dog”.

Anthony Albanese wrote in this paper about the voice, relating it to the 1967 referendum, Freedom Rides, Mabo, Wik and the Redfern Speech. Get it? Vote Yes, and you will be on the “right side of history”. Doesn’t that give you goosebumps? Who would want to carry the guilt resulting from voting No to the voice, which the Prime Minister has described as a “gracious and modest request”?

Each of us must make a decision. When at the booth, just ask yourself “How will the voice help those Indigenous Australians who need the most help?” before you vote.

Anthony Dillon is an honorary fellow in the faculty of health sciences at the Australian Catholic University and identifies as a part-Indigenous Australian.